What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Brigit Bara wrote:It is customary for people to describe the Big Bang as a religious creation story, based on Genesis. But the truth is that the Universe does exist. And how it came into existence is a question that scientists are seeking to answer.

So how do you get an entire universe, with its known laws and physical properties, to come into existence?

The universe is infinte as far as we can know. There is no evidence of a beginning or an end to the universe.

Brigit Bara wrote:Why not admit that Science, Inc is working on explaining the existence of everything from nothing? --And that may be an inherently unscientific pursuit.

Nothing exists. The basis of the universe is Nothing. Everything is Charge wrapped around Nothing. Charge swirls around Nothing infinitely to become Everything. Charge and Nothing are created and directed by Mind. We experience consciousness from the reception of Mind energy through our brain. Consciousness is a feedback modulator of Charge. Our perception shapes physical reality. Our thoughts imprint on the Mind to shape Charge into Everything.

The universe is infinite as far as we can know. There is no evidence of a beginning or an end to the universe.

1. A self-organizing and self-sustaining structure at that scale is just as good an assumption as a self-creating, self-organizing, and perishing structure.

2. The choice is a metaphysical one; no instrumentation can really sound out the measure of these dimensions or see the future.

3. As free individuals, people do have their own judgement and conscience in such things.

4. But both models appear to me to play a little fast and loose with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

5. In the Biblical view, by faith (fully aware, consciously made metaphysical decision) we understand that things which are seen are made by things which are not seen, and also all things are continuously directed by Providence. It is easily distinguishable from Big Bang or Steady State, because It is not chaotic or created by Chance (Fortuna), Time (Chronos) and Gravity (Nephalim, to fall). Once again, the Big Bang resembling very closely a Greek Creation Egg -- except at least the Greeks added that Love (Agape, or maybe Eudokia or Philos) was there!

“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”~Homer

All right, I'm willing to try revive this thread, which has a very promising beginning, and collection of cogent questions and suggestions by Brigit Bara, and others. This is about the nature of both science and religion, but let us focus on the nature of science for a moment. By various definitions, including that quoted, expounded, and questioned by Brigit, science is an exploration of material causes and effects, and limits itself to that material pursuit. There is nothing inherently illogical about this limitation. We are impelled by science to make claims, then to give evidence for those claims, and reason [impeccably] as to the connections between the evidence and claims. Further we are impelled to show how our claims are better supported by the evidence than objections to our claims. This is the basis for scientific discourse. It is possible to be scientific without experimentation, but it is impossible to advance science without a constant pursuit of more data, via observation and repeated experiment, which can only be accomplished in the material realm, supposedly. As soon as immaterial causes or effects are introduced into the discourse, it is allegedly no longer scientific, therefore the boundary of science has been reached. But what if "reality" cannot be defined only by material causes and effects? Can we observe or produce evidence for immaterial causes or effects? Is it possible for a person employing all the tools of science to arrive at a conclusion that something immaterial exists in the "real" universe? Is it possible for those conclusions to be reproduced or verified by other scientists? Is it possible to avoid endless re-definitions of "material", "immaterial" and "real" in the pursuit of understanding the answers to these questions? I think so, and have expounded on this elsewhere, but here's a simple outlook that resolves this issue for me:Two different [impeccably logical] scientists can look at the same evidenciary set and arrive at disparate conclusions. This is possible because, whether or not they are aware of it, each is guided by an initial set of beliefs [scientists prefer the term "assumptions" -- eg. materialism, determinism, or perhaps deism or theism] which predetermines the conclusions they reach. How can this happen? The inevitable gaps in knowledge due to the finite evidenciary set require us to "glue" the rest of the data together in the most "reasonable" way we know, very much akin to reconstructions of ancient human skulls. And also as in that analogy, we "reason", according to our initial and inescapable belief set toward a conclusion about what the evidences mean. Beyond that much conjecture occurs, but this is still generally considered to be "scientific" discourse. A comparison of the two previous paragraphs reveals that the limitations of science are not so well defined after all. Scientists begin with an initial faith base, guided through the myriad of evidences, and driven toward a satisfactory conclusion, whether or not they reach that in their lifetime. On occasion an honest scientist is compelled by her/his research to alter initial beliefs, but this is rarer than most like to admit. The bottom line is that there is no clear separation between scientific and religious pursuits, and those who object or disagree with this often do so with a great zeal that can only be described as religious. Now for the thread question: Neither the BB nor SS cosmologies are biblical. According to the scripture, at a point in time [Gen 1:1 -- the beginning] God created the heavens and earth by speaking. Elsewhere [eg. Col 1:21] we are informed that God continues to hold the universe together. Neither of these biblical premises fits the BB or the SS cosmologies. Now one can try to find similarities, eg. BB and Gen 1:1 both point to an initial event. Something described as initial formlessness then becomes transformed into an orderly cosmos. SS and Col 1:21 both point to consistency in the regulation of the universe through natural law. Beyond these generalities one is hard pressed to find agreement between other main tenets of scripture, BB or SS. If God started the universe, it could have proceeded from that point in either the BB or SS paradigm, or something else. Biblically speaking, nature is supernatural... the biblical God both started and maintains the universe. No fact or evidence from science can deny this claim. And despite the perception that the universe is infinite, physical laws only make sense in the context of finite objects and actions. So our actual experience of nature and science compels us to treat the cosmos as finite. Ridiculing the cosmos or God, as prominent atheists love to do, only points to their/our own lack of understanding. "The fool says in his heart..."

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

webolife wrote:All right, I'm willing to try revive this thread, which has a very promising beginning, and collection of cogent questions and suggestions by Brigit Bara, and others. This is about the nature of both science and religion, but let us focus on the nature of science for a moment. By various definitions, including that quoted, expounded, and questioned by Brigit, science is an exploration of material causes and effects, and limits itself to that material pursuit. There is nothing inherently illogical about this limitation. We are impelled by science to make claims, then to give evidence for those claims, and reason [impeccably] as to the connections between the evidence and claims. Further we are impelled to show how our claims are better supported by the evidence than objections to our claims. This is the basis for scientific discourse. It is possible to be scientific without experimentation, but it is impossible to advance science without a constant pursuit of more data, via observation and repeated experiment, which can only be accomplished in the material realm, supposedly. As soon as immaterial causes or effects are introduced into the discourse, it is allegedly no longer scientific, therefore the boundary of science has been reached. But what if "reality" cannot be defined only by material causes and effects? Can we observe or produce evidence for immaterial causes or effects? Is it possible for a person employing all the tools of science to arrive at a conclusion that something immaterial exists in the "real" universe? Is it possible for those conclusions to be reproduced or verified by other scientists? Is it possible to avoid endless re-definitions of "material", "immaterial" and "real" in the pursuit of understanding the answers to these questions? I think so, and have expounded on this elsewhere, but here's a simple outlook that resolves this issue for me:Two different [impeccably logical] scientists can look at the same evidenciary set and arrive at disparate conclusions. This is possible because, whether or not they are aware of it, each is guided by an initial set of beliefs [scientists prefer the term "assumptions" -- eg. materialism, determinism, or perhaps deism or theism] which predetermines the conclusions they reach. How can this happen? The inevitable gaps in knowledge due to the finite evidenciary set require us to "glue" the rest of the data together in the most "reasonable" way we know, very much akin to reconstructions of ancient human skulls. And also as in that analogy, we "reason", according to our initial and inescapable belief set toward a conclusion about what the evidences mean. Beyond that much conjecture occurs, but this is still generally considered to be "scientific" discourse. A comparison of the two previous paragraphs reveals that the limitations of science are not so well defined after all. Scientists begin with an initial faith base, guided through the myriad of evidences, and driven toward a satisfactory conclusion, whether or not they reach that in their lifetime. On occasion an honest scientist is compelled by her/his research to alter initial beliefs, but this is rarer than most like to admit. The bottom line is that there is no clear separation between scientific and religious pursuits, and those who object or disagree with this often do so with a great zeal that can only be described as religious. Now for the thread question: Neither the BB nor SS cosmologies are biblical. According to the scripture, at a point in time [Gen 1:1 -- the beginning] God created the heavens and earth by speaking. Elsewhere [eg. Col 1:21] we are informed that God continues to hold the universe together. Neither of these biblical premises fits the BB or the SS cosmologies. Now one can try to find similarities, eg. BB and Gen 1:1 both point to an initial event. Something described as initial formlessness then becomes transformed into an orderly cosmos. SS and Col 1:21 both point to consistency in the regulation of the universe through natural law. Beyond these generalities one is hard pressed to find agreement between other main tenets of scripture, BB or SS. If God started the universe, it could have proceeded from that point in either the BB or SS paradigm, or something else. Biblically speaking, nature is supernatural... the biblical God both started and maintains the universe. No fact or evidence from science can deny this claim. And despite the perception that the universe is infinite, physical laws only make sense in the context of finite objects and actions. So our actual experience of nature and science compels us to treat the cosmos as finite. Ridiculing the cosmos or God, as prominent atheists love to do, only points to their/our own lack of understanding. "The fool says in his heart..."

And unless they are completely independent are under considerable social and financial pressure to shut up about it.

This is about the nature of both science and religion, but let us focus on the nature of science for a moment. By various definitions, including that quoted, expounded, and questioned by Brigit, science is an exploration of material causes and effects, and limits itself to that material pursuit. There is nothing inherently illogical about this limitation. We are impelled by science to make claims, then to give evidence for those claims, and reason [impeccably] as to the connections between the evidence and claims. Further we are impelled to show how our claims are better supported by the evidence than objections to our claims. This is the basis for scientific discourse. It is possible to be scientific without experimentation, but it is impossible to advance science without a constant pursuit of more data, via observation and repeated experiment, which can only be accomplished in the material realm, supposedly. As soon as immaterial causes or effects are introduced into the discourse, it is allegedly no longer scientific, therefore the boundary of science has been reached.

Hi again webolife, I am really glad you took the time to clarify that -- not that every one will agree (: Science is a branch of knowledge that is limited to physical observation and is guided by experiment. It is concerned with the properties of energy and matter, and is based on observation along with tests which control variables. Physical testability is a limiting factor because any scientific result is repeatable under the same circumstances. Falsifiability is also a limiting factor because there are theories which have immense explanatory power and persuasive arguments, along with stacks and stacks of "observations" supporting them, but this does not mean that they are scientific theories. Some examples include psychoanalytic theory and historicism.

Also, genuine science is open to rational criticism at all times from other scientists and indeed from any one who makes a clear and valid objection -- especially any one who finds himself impacted by the paradigms and the conclusions reached by the researchers.

Now, since science "deals in material causes and effects," does that mean that only materialists and positivists can be scientists? There are many people who assert that a strict adherence to materialism is the only valid means of knowing anything. These practitioners say that materialistic explanations are the only allowable possibilities for all questions, even those that are not physical.

That just has not been the case historically, and it is not the case now, except in the minds of academics and experts. The individual scientist/inventor may have any number of questions, motives, spiritual commitments, and problems he is trying to solve. Karl Popper, when he found himself being accused of being a positivist, said this:

“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”~Homer

“I have fought for the doctrine that positivistic epistemology is inadequate even in its analysis of the natural sciences, which, in fact, are not ‘careful generalizations from observation,’ as is usually believed, but are essentially speculative and daring."

"Finally, I have not only stressed the meaningfulness of metaphysical assertions and the fact that I am myself a metaphysical realist, but I have also analyzed the important historical role played by metaphysics in the formation of scientific theories.”

“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”~Homer

webolife says, "Two different [impeccably logical] scientists can look at the same evidenciary set and arrive at disparate conclusions. This is possible because, whether or not they are aware of it, each is guided by an initial set of beliefs [scientists prefer the term "assumptions" -- eg. materialism, determinism, or perhaps deism or theism] which predetermines the conclusions they reach. How can this happen? The inevitable gaps in knowledge due to the finite evidenciary set require us to "glue" the rest of the data together in the most "reasonable" way we know, very much akin to reconstructions of ancient human skulls."

Agreed. And so we accept that individual scientists have different outlooks and philosophies which animate their desire to pursue a hypothesis. {Occasionally, this may even be the affection for knowing the truth.} This is as it should be; only materialists pretend to be completely physically objective in their observations and tests. I guess we should be grateful that they develop patience in the rest of us, as it is obvious to all but themselves that they are perfectly capable of confirming anything they want to confirm, and calling it science.

“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”~Homer

As soon as immaterial causes or effects are introduced into the discourse, it is allegedly no longer scientific, therefore the boundary of science has been reached. But what if "reality" cannot be defined only by material causes and effects? Can we observe or produce evidence for immaterial causes or effects? Is it possible for a person employing all the tools of science to arrive at a conclusion that something immaterial exists in the "real" universe? Is it possible for those conclusions to be reproduced or verified by other scientists?

~webolife

“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”~Homer

MATERIALISM is a philosophy based on the ideas that matter is the only thing in the universe that has reality, and that matter is the basis of all that exists. The word comes from the Latin materia, which means matter. Materialsits think that physical changes in the body and nervous system cause all mental processes. They justify this belief by pointing out that men can really know only what they see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. They deny the existence of mind or soul as distinct from matter, and insist that feelings, thoughts, and will have no independent existence.

This form of materialism was first expressed by two Greek philosophers, Democritus and Leucippus, in the 400's BC.They stated that invisible material particles make up the visible world, and that similar particles make up the mind. Some later philosophers, including Epicurus and Lucretius, accepted this idea.

Materialism has always been a popular philosophy among scientists, because, if everything in the world is made of matter, then we can analyze and understand the world according to the laws which govern the way matter behaves. This idea is calledscientific materialism. According to it, everything that exists now is the result of factors and conditions that existed before, and everything that will exist in the future must develop from some combination or change in the factors and conditions that exist now. This idea is often called mechanism. It was first fully stated by Baruch Spinoza.

A German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel, explained this idea in the development of the universe, and gave it the name dialectic. Hegel was not a materialist but his ideas were important in the development of a new philosophy, dialectical materialism. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engles, and Lenin developed it. In this system, the world develops along a dialectical path, with mechanical changes in what exists today producing what will exist tomorrow. The doctrine is materialist in its emphasis on the physical world and its denial of values based on mind or soul. Dialectical materialism is the philosophic basis for communism, a political and economic movement....Except in its scientific and dialectic forms, materialism has not attracted as widespread popularity among philosophers as it has among scientists and laymen. See Thomas Hobbes

As we can see, any philosophy which explains the most basic phenomena in society can, and has, masqueraded as science. This was the entire basis of the real Madness of Crowds in the 1900's: the intellectual revolutionaries always donned the mantle of science and of scientific certainty. And, as it turned out, never ever got the results they claimed they would get.

It is interesting to note that the prominent atheist and materialist, Christopher Hitchens, claimed that Communism did not work because it was "a religion." So the tendency to deny the bad and unwanted results of scienctific theories, and to reassign them as "a religon," has become quite a pattern for materialists, in my view.

“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”~Homer

Hitchens fails to realize that his own Secular Humanism was declared a religion in the Supreme Court of the US. Atheism is considered a religion by the public schools of my state, because of its strong position on matters of belief. What I've tried to outline above and on other threads from time to time is that every person, scientist or otherwise, operates in accordance with a set of presuppositions, premises, paradigms, claims without any possiblity of material proof, a worldview, a belief system, a faith base. Conclusions one may reach through any kind of research, experimentation, observation, or experience are generally channeled towards agreement with that faith base. Occasionally the weight of trauma or persuasive impression, and yes... data... causes a person to shift their paradigm, but even such shifts are justified by the underlying belief system. Ask any atheist what would persuade them to change their belief, and rather than answer they will deny that belief has any part of their thinking. Absence of faith = the ultimate denial, and the profoundest dishonesty.

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.